Thomas Hobbes Research Paper

Hobbes and Locke both abandoned the thought of the divine right of monarchy. Both did not agree with the fact that the ruler or assembly would have all power over its citizens. So basically they were against Absolutism and their views were that of rebels in their time period. Theses two philosophers both held similar ideas but also have conflicting ideas pertaining to the citizens "social contract" with their rulers, "Natural Condition of Mankind," and sovereignty.

Over time, this powerful theoretical proposition has become a legitimating cornerstone for the robust defense of market capitalism, a particular ensemble of political institutions, and a specific line of justification for liberal ideas and values. Though manifestly plausible as an accurate reading of Smith when Wealth of Nations is read on its own, even on these terms, this interpretation, is limited and partial. Astonishingly, and disappointingly, most readers of Wealth of Nations fail to attend the very next sentence that follows Smith's seemingly transhistorical, objectivist theory of human dispositions, mindful of Mandeville's classical representation of human egoism. Smith immediately probed more deeply by asking "Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature of which no further account can be given; or whether, as

The revolution generated radical changes in the principles, opinions, and sentiments of the global people. New ideas and issues affected political ideas. In addition a new government was also changed. A few of the many enlightenment thinkers were Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, baron Do Montesquieu, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

James Madison strongly believed and supported increasing national power of government and that led him to establish his model known as Madison’s model. James Madison’s design to maximize liberty and still allow the government to govern is proven through the four component parts of Madison’s model. These four components include separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and republicanism. The philosophies of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes influenced Madison in a way that allowed him to have both liberty and order at the same time. John Locke believed in individual liberty and freedom from the government whilst Thomas Hobbes believed that the state of nature is that people are born selfish. These two philosophers managed to influence Madison because Madison wanted liberty but also wanted order and that was mentioned in Hobbes’s theory of a strong leader which provided order.

Born during a period of medieval philosophy, Thomas Hobbes developed a new way of thinking. He perfected his moral and political theories in his controversial book Leviathan, written in 1651. In his introduction, Hobbes describes the state of nature as an organism analogous to a large person (p.42). He advises that people should look into themselves to see the nature of humanity. In his quote, “ The passions that incline men to peace, are fear of death; desire of such things as are necessary to commodious living; and a hope by their industry to obtain them,” Hobbes view of the motivations for moral behavior becomes valid because of his use of examples to support his theories, which in turn, apply to Pojman’s five purposes for morality.

On the other hand, Smith believes that at the state of nature, man actually tends towards harmonious relationships of bartering and are willing to work together instead of apart. He utilizes individual power to give him leverage in transactions. His creation of social order is not to control this tendency, but rather to create a system in which it can flourish, which he calls the division of labor. In this, each man finds his place in the social order, produces something in particular, and a lot of the transaction costs from bartering are worked past. Unlike Hobbes, he believes that social order simply adds to the ability of man’s power towards transaction.

Hobbes views human nature as very mechanistic, requiring that our actions have direct benefit to us. One may argue against Hobbes that he does not provide explanation for why some people in our current society act altruistically. For example, many people have been known to risk life and limb to save another. Hobbes may respond that those people are foolish aberrations from survivalism. One could also respond that altruistic acts do benefit those who do them, either by bettering one’s reputation, or giving one mental satisfaction. This is not adequate enough to explain why one would donate organs upon death, when one’s reputation is no longer of any use to them. Take another example: while driving one sees an unknown stranger standing in the road and swerves out of the way into a tree. Regardless of the outcome, the driver risks her own life in an effort to preserve the life of a stranger. Under the Hobbesian theory, these actions go unexplained.

Locke foresaw the same potential threat as Hobbes, but he felt that man, as a social, animal, also had an innate desire to cooperate as well as compete. He could choose to be virtuous as well as venal (Morgan, 2011, p. 716). Not simply because he was “good,” but because cooperation and conflict reduction were also in his enlightened self-interest (Morgan, 2011, p. 594). Locke, unlike Hobbes, was a Deist, and was influenced by his religious view of man. Men are sinners

Hobbes believed that in nature people had to do whatever was necessary to survive and that even if living together, people were still likely to fight. His view of people was dark and most likely due to the horrors of a series of political schemes and armed conflicts he had seen during the English Civil War. He believed that a contract was necessary. Hobbes felt that people were not capable of living in a democratic society. Instead, a single dominant ruler was needed, and if everyone did their part, then the community would function smoothly. Hobbes’ theory is unlike Locke and Rousseau’s. He believed that once the people gave power to the government, the people gave up the right to that power. It would essentially be the cost of the safety the people were seeking.

Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to connect the philosophical commitments to politics. He offers a distinctive definition to what man needs in life which is a successful means to a conclusion. He eloquently defines the social contract of man after defining the intentions of man. This paper will account for why Hobbes felt that man was inherently empowered to preserve life through all means necessary, and how he creates an authorization for an absolute sovereign authority to help keep peace and preserve life. Hobbes first defines the nature of man. Inherently man is evil. He will do whatever is morally permissible to self preservation. This definition helps us understand the argument of why Hobbes was pessimistic of man, and

The intent of this paper is to look more closely at what Hobbes and Locke wrote concerning the pre-political or pre-social state called the State of Nature; and the transition from the State of Nature to society, referred to as the social contract.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a

Thomas Hobbes describes his views on human nature and his ideal government in Leviathan. He believes human nature is antagonistic, and condemns man to a life of violence and misery without strong government. In contrast to animals, who are able to live together in a society without a coercive power, Hobbes believes that men are unable to coexist peacefully without a greater authority because they are confrontational by nature. “In the nature of man”, Hobbes says “there are three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence, thirdly, glory” and then he goes on to list man’s primary aims for each being gain, safety and reputation (Hobbes, Leviathan, 13, 6).

Some say he was absent-minded or even oblivious, but I rather like to think of it as frequent states of profound thought. The man I refer to is Adam Smith and after having read the assigned excerpts and a few other passages from his The Theory of Moral Sentiments and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations I not only hold him in a new light, but I have arrived at three heavily debated conclusions. First, he believed that self-interest is the singular motivation that effectively leads to public prosperity. Second, although Smith feels that the one’s pursuit of self–interest should be their primary concern, he knew that humans are inclined to take interest in and enjoyment from kind and charitable

In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes lays out the hypothetical principal of the state of nature, where human it-self is artificial. It is human nature that people will not be able to love permanently, everyone against everyone power between the strongest. In this nation-state you must be the strongest in order to survive (survival of the fittest). In order to survive there are laws we must follow, to insure of our security because of fear. We were able to suppress our fear, by creating order, to have more order; we must have security, so the social contract appeared.